OCR Text |
Show DECLARATIONS OF POLICY 15 Despite California's judicial recognition of the doctrine of riparian rights throughout almost the entire history of the State, it was not until 1928 that the State constitution for the first time specifically named this doctrine in an amendment which, however, placed an important limitation on the extent of the right.91 The amendment declares that riparian rights in the water of a stream "attach to, but to no more than" the quantity of water required or used reasonably and beneficially for the purposes for which the riparian lands are or may be made adaptable. In the early years of statehood, the California Supreme Court recognized the riparian doctrine as a fundamental part of the State water law, and in its many subsequent water rights decisions it has never deviated from a policy of according to that doctrine outstanding importance. However, notwithstanding its long line of proriparian decisions, the supreme court accepted the constitutional amendment of 1928 as being the supreme law of the State, having superseded all State laws inconsistent therewith,92 and acknowledged that its duty was "to cause the law to conform to the state policy now commanded by our fundamental law."93 Early statutes of the Dakotas and of Oklahoma declared that the landowner might use water running in a definite stream over or under the surface of his land, but might not prevent its natural flow nor pursue nor pollute it.94 This, according to the South Dakota Supreme Court, was a concise statement of the common law riparian doctrine.95 As such, these statutes are unique in riparian legislation in the West which, aside from disclaiming interference with vested riparian rights,96 has been directed chiefly toward restricting the operation of the riparian doctrine. Important legislative limitations upon riparian rights include those of Oregon, South Dakota, and Kansas, which appear to have generally restricted the exercise of such rights, as vested riparian rights, to the extent of actual ap- plication of water to beneficial use made at the time of the enactment of water appropriation statutes or, in certain cases, shortly thereafter.97 91Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 3. This provision is repeated in Cal. Water Code §§100 and 101 (West 1956). 93 Gin S. Chow v. Santa Barbara, 217 Cal. 673, 700, 22 Pac. (2d) 5 (1933). 93Peabody v. Vallejo, 2 Cal. (2d) 351, 365, 40 Pac. (2d) 486 (1935). 94Terr. Dak. Laws 1865-1866, ch. 1, § 256, Civ. Code § 255 (1877), N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 47-01-13, repealed, Laws 1963, ch. 419, § 7; S. Dak. Code § 61.0101 (1939), repealed, Laws 1955, ch. 430, § 1; Terr. Okla. Stat. § 4162 (1890), Stat. Ann. tit. 60, § 60 (Supp. 1961), amended, Laws 1963, ch. 419, § 7, Stat. Ann. tit. 60, § 60 (Supp. 1970). "Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Cyclone Ditch Co., 15 S. Dak. 519, 525-526, 91 N. W. 352 (1902). 96 See, e.g., Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7507 (1954). 97Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 539.010 (Supp. 1955); S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-1-9 (1967); Kans. Stat. Ann. § 82a-701 (1969). Courts have sustained the validity of Oregon and Kansas statutes on several points presented for determination. In re Willow Creek, 74 Oreg. 592, 610-620, 625-628, 144 |